falcotron

How does "magic blood" work?

137 posts in this topic

39 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

If someone isn't crowned why would they be "king"? King's blood doesn't carry any kingly heritable traits, unless you count leadership or something like that. You are taking Melisandre for her words, just like Stannis. Her ritual is about human sacrifice, and it may not need a leader or a relative of a leader. We know from her chapter in AFFC that she doesn't always know what she is doing. Magic is only good as how the practitioner understands it. If you are looking for evidence of anything, you won't find it in-universe. Mel is the only one who does this king's blood thing. There are other instances of sacrifice, of people or body parts (as in the case of Varys), but the bloodline of the sacrificial subject is never really considered. 

15 hours ago, falcotron said:

You probably mean Mel's chapter in ADwD, since that's the only Mel PoV we have so far. As to Mel being the only one talking about king's blood, we know maester Aemon thinks so too. Sure, he could be wrong, but he believes in the power of king's blood.

ADwD - Jon I 

Burning dead children had ceased to trouble Jon Snow; live ones were another matter. Two kings to wake the dragon. The father first and then the son, so both die kings. The words had been murmured by one of the queen's men as Maester Aemon had cleaned his wounds. Jon had tried to dismiss them as his fever talking. Aemon had demurred. "There is power in a king's blood," the old maester had warned, "and better men than Stannis have done worse things than this." The king can be harsh and unforgiving, aye, but a babe still on the breast? Only a monster would give a living child to the flames.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

You probably mean Mel's chapter in ADwD, since that's the only Mel PoV we have so far. As to Mel being the only one talking about king's blood, we know maester Aemon thinks so too. Sure, he could be wrong, but he believes in the power of king's blood.

ADwD - Jon I 

Burning dead children had ceased to trouble Jon Snow; live ones were another matter. Two kings to wake the dragon. The father first and then the son, so both die kings. The words had been murmured by one of the queen's men as Maester Aemon had cleaned his wounds. Jon had tried to dismiss them as his fever talking. Aemon had demurred. "There is power in a king's blood," the old maester had warned, "and better men than Stannis have done worse things than this." The king can be harsh and unforgiving, aye, but a babe still on the breast? Only a monster would give a living child to the flames.

Ahhh that's interesting. I thought Mel's POV was in AFFC, my bad. Something tells me the "power in king's blood" is another thing that GRRM is leaving out to the reader to wonder. 

Now I see the quote about the two kings, father and son. dying to wake the dragon, isn't this what Dany did? Has she unknowingly performed a super powerful magic ritual? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Ahhh that's interesting. I thought Mel's POV was in AFFC, my bad. Something tells me the "power in king's blood" is another thing that GRRM is leaving out to the reader to wonder. 

Now I see the quote about the two kings, father and son. dying to wake the dragon, isn't this what Dany did? Has she unknowingly performed a super powerful magic ritual? 

The father dies first, so that the son dies a king as well, so it doesn't apply to Dany. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Ahhh that's interesting. I thought Mel's POV was in AFFC, my bad. Something tells me the "power in king's blood" is another thing that GRRM is leaving out to the reader to wonder. 

Now I see the quote about the two kings, father and son. dying to wake the dragon, isn't this what Dany did? Has she unknowingly performed a super powerful magic ritual? 

Taking into account errors on prophecy translation and interpretation, she probably did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Tucu said:

Taking into account errors on prophecy translation and interpretation, she probably did.

The "two kings" bit is not part of the prophecy though. It's just something Jon hears from a wounded QM being cared for by maester Aemon. If, and because we're talking about Mel it's a huge if, she is right and if the QM heard it from her and correctly, it doesn't apply to Dany. Because the whole idea is that you'd need two kings to wake the dragon, and if we're talking father and son, the father must die first or else the son won't be a king. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

The "two kings" bit is not part of the prophecy though. It's just something Jon hears from a wounded QM being cared for by maester Aemon. If, and because we're talking about Mel it's a huge if, she is right and if the QM heard it from her and correctly, it doesn't apply to Dany. Because the whole idea is that you'd need two kings to wake the dragon, and if we're talking father and son, the father must die first or else the son won't be a king. 

It was a feverish dream from a Queen's man. Aemon took this seriously.

Khals are like kings, but the title is not inherited. According to the House of the Undying visions, Rhaego was going to be a khal on his own right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Tucu said:

It was a feverish dream from a Queen's man. Aemon took this seriously.

Khals are like kings, but the title is not inherited. According to the House of the Undying visions, Rhaego was going to be a khal on his own right.

Yes, the QM had a fever, that's why Jon assumes it's "his fever talking". But that doesn't have anything to do w/ what I said... the two kings bit is not part of the prophecy, so errors in translation and/or interpretation don't come into it. And the whole idea about sacrificing a king and his son is that both die as kings: two kings to wake the dragon. 

And I never claimed that Dothraki titles are passed down from father to son. But the poster I quoted brought up the possibility that this might be how Dany hatched the dragons' eggs. And I was pointing out that, even if we take it as a given that Rhaego would be a khal/king, it doesn't apply because he died first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kissdbyfire said:

Yes, the QM had a fever, that's why Jon assumes it's "his fever talking". But that doesn't have anything to do w/ what I said... the two kings bit is not part of the prophecy, so errors in translation and/or interpretation don't come into it. And the whole idea about sacrificing a king and his son is that both die as kings: two kings to wake the dragon. 

And I never claimed that Dothraki titles are passed down from father to son. But the poster I quoted brought up the possibility that this might be how Dany hatched the dragons' eggs. And I was pointing out that, even if we take it as a given that Rhaego would be a khal/king, it doesn't apply because he died first.

2 kings or 2 khals, given the sources of prophecies a bit of confusion is normal. Mel says so in the same chapter; this also seems to be the moment when she decides that burning Mance will not help.

Quote

"It may be that you are not wrong about the wildling king. I shall pray for the Lord of Light to send me guidance. When I gaze into the flames, I can see through stone and earth, and find the truth within men's souls. I can speak to kings long dead and children not yet born, and watch the years and seasons flicker past, until the end of days."

"Are your fires never wrong?"

"Never … though we priests are mortal and sometimes err, mistaking this must come for this may come."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tucu said:

2 kings or 2 khals, given the sources of prophecies a bit of confusion is normal. Mel says so in the same chapter; this also seems to be the moment when she decides that burning Mance will not help.

 

Erhm... the two kings is not part of any prophecy we've seen or heard of. If I'm mistaken in this, pls provide a quote.

And again, I never disputed the fact that a khal = a king; on the contrary. The problem you haven't addressed in any of your replies is that Rhaego died before Drogo, therefore he was never a king/khal/leader. 

Edited by kissdbyfire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Erhm... the two kings is not part of any prophecy we've seen or heard of. If I'm mistaken in this, pls provide a quote.

And again, I never disputed the fact that a khal = a king; on the contrary. The problem you haven't addressed in any of your replies is that Rhaego died before Drogo, therefore he was never a king/khal/leader. 

The premise is very simple. GRRM is feeding us pieces of TPTP information, but not all of them will have a giant neon sign saying "Here, there be prophecies"

Rhaego being a khal was one of those "this may come" moments that Mel says the priests usually confuse with one of those "must come" moments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tucu said:

The premise is very simple. GRRM is feeding us pieces of TPTP information, but not all of them will have a giant neon sign saying "Here, there be prophecies"

Sure. Still, we do have prophecies, and sometimes they are worded slightly differently for instance. But again, there's never any mention of "two kings to wake the dragon" in any version of any prophecy we've been given so far. 

1 minute ago, Tucu said:

Rhaego being a khal was one of those "this may come" moments that Mel says the priests usually confuse with one of those "must come" moments.

And if it was a "could have been" thing, the fact remains that it never happened. So, again, Rhaego didn't die a king/khal therefore it doesn't apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Sure. Still, we do have prophecies, and sometimes they are worded slightly differently for instance. But again, there's never any mention of "two kings to wake the dragon" in any version of any prophecy we've been given so far. 

And if it was a "could have been" thing, the fact remains that it never happened. So, again, Rhaego didn't die a king/khal therefore it doesn't apply.

Mel tells us in the same chapter that her prophetic visions are a mix of potential and real futures. So a mixup in a prophecy is probably the norm.

In this chapter and a follow-up one, we learn these things:

-A Queen's man has a feverish dream about the recipe to wake dragons by burning 2 kings

-Stannis and Mel are planning to burn Mance

-Jon tells her that the little prince is not really a prince and has no right to be king-beyond-the-wall

-Mel says that she will reconsider her position regarding Mance

-Later, Mel decides not to burn Mance and stages the Lord of Bones glamour

Add these things up to understand Mel's line of thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tucu said:

Mel tells us in the same chapter that her prophetic visions are a mix of potential and real futures. So a mixup in a prophecy is probably the norm.

Could be. Or not. Point is, we can't know for sure at this point w/ the info we have. Being wary about the meaning of prophecies is a good idea imo. Assuming anything is "the norm" or just assuming anything is a given, not so much. 

1 hour ago, Tucu said:

In this chapter and a follow-up one, we learn these things:

-A Queen's man has a feverish dream about the recipe to wake dragons by burning 2 kings

Very tiny nitpick, but we are never told the QM had a fever dream, only that he was rambling about burning a king and his son afterwards to awaken the dragon. By the way, this is the point I have been trying to make about Dany waking the dragon(s) using the "two kings to wake the dragon" recipe. Even looking at it as you suggested, that Rhaego "could have been" a king doesn't work for me. 

1 hour ago, Tucu said:

-Stannis and Mel are planning to burn Mance

-Jon tells her that the little prince is not really a prince and has no right to be king-beyond-the-wall

-Mel says that she will reconsider her position regarding Mance

-Later, Mel decides not to burn Mance and stages the Lord of Bones glamour

Add these things up to understand Mel's line of thought.

Mel tells Jon she'll seek Red Rahloo's wisdom irt Mance, yeah, at the end of that same chapter. But none of these points have t do w/ the Dany awakening the dragons imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Could be. Or not. Point is, we can't know for sure at this point w/ the info we have. Being wary about the meaning of prophecies is a good idea imo. Assuming anything is "the norm" or just assuming anything is a given, not so much. 

Very tiny nitpick, but we are never told the QM had a fever dream, only that he was rambling about burning a king and his son afterwards to awaken the dragon. By the way, this is the point I have been trying to make about Dany waking the dragon(s) using the "two kings to wake the dragon" recipe. Even looking at it as you suggested, that Rhaego "could have been" a king doesn't work for me. 

Mel tells Jon she'll seek Red Rahloo's wisdom irt Mance, yeah, at the end of that same chapter. But none of these points have t do w/ the Dany awakening the dragons imo.

Mel changes her mind about burning Mance after learning that the litte prince is not a prince and will not be a king on Mance's death. This is strong hint that the burning of 2 kings to wake the dragons is part of Mel's teachings to the Queen's men.

With regards to Dany: she woke dragon from stones, burned a khal and burned the person that would have becomed the Stallion That Mounts the World.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tucu said:

With regards to Dany: she woke dragon from stones, burned a khal and burned the person that would have becomed the Stallion That Mounts the World.

Exactly. And that doesn't work for me. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Exactly. And that doesn't work for me. :)

 

I think this will be as good it gets for GRRM explaining how Dany woke the dragons and why prophetic visions are very confusing as they contain pieces of real and potential futures and prophets can't distinguish betweem the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Is Stannis a king, though? What makes a king? What is the difference between a king and a lord? Aren't the household knights, landed knights, men-at-arms, bannermen, etc. also swearing an oath of allegiance to their lord? Why is it that such a vow doesn't make a lord 'special'?

How does 'magic' realize that a guy people declare a king is a king and not just some pretender? And how does it differentiate between a king and a lord?

Are the vows you swear to a lord in principle so much different from those you swear to a king? We don't know. If you want to make the case for a king being super special such vows would have to be confirmed to be different, right?

Now you're just re-asking the questions I asked at the start of this thread, but laser focused on one of the many possible options. Maybe that could be useful, so let's go with it.

But some of the questions you're asking out of incredulity have obvious answers.

How does magic distinguish between a king and a pretender? If the magic works via oaths being a ritual—or via a crowning ceremony being a ritual, or via mass belief, or many other possibilities—then it wouldn't. But why is that surprising? The only difference between a pretender and a king is that a pretender hasn't won yet. (If you're misusing the word "pretender" to mean "impostor" as many fans do, that's a different question—but with basically the same answer.)

And as for why vows to a lord might be different from vows to a king—that's what makes ritual magic not scientific. Repeating the same ritual might have the same effects, just as repeating a chemical process does. But a similar chemical process usually produces similar results—and when you get something qualitatively different, there's a reason that can be worked out rationally—so scientists, engineers, and craftsmen can improve our knowledge by experimenting. A similar ritual produces no results at all, so there's no way to do science on rituals. (Unless you're in a fantasy world created by Campbell, or Gygax—in those worlds, magic really is just a branch of science, as GRRM has said.)

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, then you have to prove that George cares about 'social contracts make you magical' thing.

Yes, if I were arguing that this is definitely the answer, I would have to prove it. But all I've done is suggest that this is one of multiple possible answers to the question. Your argument is that all of the answers but having literal dragon blood are ridiculous. To show that they're no more ridiculous than literal dragon blood doesn't require me to guess which one is actually right and prove it, it just requires showing that one or more of them are no more ridiculous than literal dragon blood,

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I find the idea of a social contract pretty ridiculous, actually. It is a ploy to make you believe that the way things are - or should be, if you want some reforms - are justified and even preferable if you have the common good in mind. And that's not really the case.

Well, good for you, but now you're not talking about GRRM's views, but your own, and you're not talking about egalitarianism at all. Why do you think this is relevant?

Meanwhile, the only reason we're talking about politics at all is that you brought up GRRM's egalitarianism as an argument for why he'd never write anything that endorses pre-enlightenment, anti-egalitarian views. The fact that his world doesn't have anyone with enlightenment ideas in it is an argument against your own prior argument, not against anything anyone else has said.

And you already seem to have abandoned that argument anyway by insisting that GRRM does in fact endorse the view that royal bloodlines are a real thing, as long as there's ancient cross-species genetic engineering involved.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, who cares about that? George's world has its own genetics and the blood of the dragon is as pure in the Targaryens of this story as the author wants it to be. And it was enough for Dany's little trick.

Who cares about that? If GRRM himself called attention to Dany having only 10% Aegon blood and suggested that therefore maybe her dragon hatching isn't about being a Targaryen, it sounds like GRRM cares about it, so it would be pretty silly for us to insist that he's wrong about his own world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for what makes a difference between ritually swearing allegiance to a lord and ritually swearing allegiance to a King? In the ritual of swearing allegiance itself, probably nothing. HOWEVER, the Lord ritually swears allegiance to his own liegelord, or the King directly, and thus presumably passes on most of the magic/power/energy gained from having people swear allegiance to him in turn. As a result, the King is the focal point of a lot more energy.

 

Say the average person has a base magical energy of 10 units, and ritually swearing allegiance passes along 10% of your magical energy, or in our example, 1 unit of magical energy. A Lord who receives 100 such oaths would then have 110 units of energy. In turn, he swears allegiance to his liegelord (passing on 11 units), who has 4 other similar lords swearing allegiance (each passing on an average of 11 units), and 100 more direct oaths of his own people; his liegelord would then have a pool of 10 +100 +55, or 165 units of energy ... Okay, maybe swearing allegiance should pass on a larger proportion of the energy that was transferred to you via someone swearing allegiance to you (half? more?) than the proportion of your own personal energies, but I think where I'm going with this is clear enough to make my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

That's why I said he's a self-styled king. Kings aren't elected. Kings win their thrones by conquest or inherit them. Elected leaders have other names depending on the governing system.

No, they really don't. Our world's history is full of elective monarchies, from ancient Macedonia to 16th century Sweden—and nobody ever says their kings aren't kings. And the same is true in Westeros—the ancient and modern Ironborn kings chosen by kingsmoot are still kings, and Robb is still a king, as far as anyone is concerned (except for the people who don't think the Iron Islands or the North are legitimate separate kingdoms in the first place, of course).

In fact, even kings who rule by right of conquest usually make sure they have something like an election to ratify themselves. One of the qualifications for William I really being king was by the approval of the barons of England and Normandy, while for William III it was by Act of Parliament.

 

8 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

I learned about Nettles through a Dance of the Dragons DVD special on YouTube. I admit that I'm not super knowledgeable about the lore. However, I thought these dragonseed people were all one way or another connected to Targs. Weren't they all on Dragonstone. It would be remarkable if non-Valyrians could ride dragons.

Before the Dance, the word "dragonseed" meant people like half-Targaryen bastards, who were, rarely, allowed to try bonding with a dragon on the assumption that they had Targaryen blood.

But during the Dance, the blacks were desperate, because they had a large advantage in dragons but a shortfall in dragon riders. So Prince Jacaerys put out a call that anyone could try to master a dragon, even if they couldn't demonstrate any Targaryen blood. If they succeeded, they would be called a dragonseed—and also given a dragon, a bunch of gold and land, and a knighthood. Many people who had clearly provable Targaryen blood failed, while some people who didn't appear to have any Targaryen blood at all succeeded.

Nettles is the one people make the biggest deal out of, because she looked the least Valyrian of all the candidates, and offered no claim of Targaryen descent, and also because she bonded with her dragon by feeding it freshly slaughtered sheep rather than just by trying to walk up to it and command it. Maybe she really did have Valyrian blood, maybe you really can tame a dragon like any other animal but it's just much harder than the special Valyrian means of doing so, or maybe Valyrian blood isn't relevant at all. The Maesters seem to think that's an open question.

8 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Better yet, why is there no mention of any non-Valyrians being able to ride dragons. I mean, when they were conquering and trading, would they have minded giving a dragon or two to closest allies?

That one has a pretty obvious answer: maintaining their monopoly on dragons is how the 40 families maintained a monopoly on power for 5000 years. Even if they knew that other people could ride dragon, they wouldn't want anyone else to know that.

8 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

I very highly doubt it. As the empire expanded and more people were absorbed and marriages were made, this simply wouldn't last. Propaganda doesn't last for thousands of years either.

It's exactly as implausible that the same 40 families could maintain an oligopoly for 5000 years, and yet somehow, they did.

8 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

And there are no rituals associated with riding a dragon. Dragons are born of eggs, and Targs, and Valyrians before them, just rode them like horses. 

No, that isn't true. When Dany is back in the Dothraki Sea in ADwD, she laments that her ancestors controlled their mounts with "binding spells and sorcerous horns", but she has to make do with words and whips.

And why would Valyrians create dragonhorns in the first place if they didn't need them? As you say, that would be a dangerous thing to fall into the hands of an enemy—so you wouldn't make them unless there were a reason good enough to make that risk worth it.

9 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

In DwD, Quentyn Martel tries to tame Rhaegal or Viserion and it doesn't end well for him. Quentyn is confident in his quest because he has some Targ blood in him. It shows that having just some Targ/ old Valyrian blood just doesn't allow anyone to ride a dragon. The dragon probably has to like you in some way. But dragons don't like just any people. 

Yes, it's possible that Targ blood is necessary but not sufficient. It's also possible that Dany has just barely enough Targ blood and Quentyn has too little. But it's also possible that Targ blood isn't the issue in the first place. Really, the only reason we have to believe that is people like Quentyn, Viserys, and Silver Denys firmly believing it. Maesters Yandel and Gyldayn don't seem so sure, so why should we be?

And why would GRRM have given us stories like Quentyn and the dragonseeds of the Dance if he just wanted us to accept the idea without question?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, falcotron said:

No, they really don't. Our world's history is full of elective monarchies, from ancient Macedonia to 16th century Sweden—and nobody ever says their kings aren't kings. And the same is true in Westeros—the ancient and modern Ironborn kings chosen by kingsmoot are still kings, and Robb is still a king, as far as anyone is concerned (except for the people who don't think the Iron Islands or the North are legitimate separate kingdoms in the first place, of course).

In fact, even kings who rule by right of conquest usually make sure they have something like an election to ratify themselves. One of the qualifications for William I really being king was by the approval of the barons of England and Normandy, while for William III it was by Act of Parliament.

 

Before the Dance, the word "dragonseed" meant people like half-Targaryen bastards, who were, rarely, allowed to try bonding with a dragon on the assumption that they had Targaryen blood.

But during the Dance, the blacks were desperate, because they had a large advantage in dragons but a shortfall in dragon riders. So Prince Jacaerys put out a call that anyone could try to master a dragon, even if they couldn't demonstrate any Targaryen blood. If they succeeded, they would be called a dragonseed—and also given a dragon, a bunch of gold and land, and a knighthood. Many people who had clearly provable Targaryen blood failed, while some people who didn't appear to have any Targaryen blood at all succeeded.

Nettles is the one people make the biggest deal out of, because she looked the least Valyrian of all the candidates, and offered no claim of Targaryen descent, and also because she bonded with her dragon by feeding it freshly slaughtered sheep rather than just by trying to walk up to it and command it. Maybe she really did have Valyrian blood, maybe you really can tame a dragon like any other animal but it's just much harder than the special Valyrian means of doing so, or maybe Valyrian blood isn't relevant at all. The Maesters seem to think that's an open question.

That one has a pretty obvious answer: maintaining their monopoly on dragons is how the 40 families maintained a monopoly on power for 5000 years. Even if they knew that other people could ride dragon, they wouldn't want anyone else to know that.

It's exactly as implausible that the same 40 families could maintain an oligopoly for 5000 years, and yet somehow, they did.

No, that isn't true. When Dany is back in the Dothraki Sea in ADwD, she laments that her ancestors controlled their mounts with "binding spells and sorcerous horns", but she has to make do with words and whips.

And why would Valyrians create dragonhorns in the first place if they didn't need them? As you say, that would be a dangerous thing to fall into the hands of an enemy—so you wouldn't make them unless there were a reason good enough to make that risk worth it.

Yes, it's possible that Targ blood is necessary but not sufficient. It's also possible that Dany has just barely enough Targ blood and Quentyn has too little. But it's also possible that Targ blood isn't the issue in the first place. Really, the only reason we have to believe that is people like Quentyn, Viserys, and Silver Denys firmly believing it. Maesters Yandel and Gyldayn don't seem so sure, so why should we be?

And why would GRRM have given us stories like Quentyn and the dragonseeds of the Dance if he just wanted us to accept the idea without question?

 

As for the dragonseeds - the Targaryens participated in the practice of First Night, or whatever they called their equivalent, on Dragonstone for hundreds of years. There'd've been a fair number of unacknowledged Targaryen bastards, and, more to the point, quite of lot of descendants of unacknowledged Targaryen bastards, mixed into the population of smallfolk on Dragonstone.

 

As far as controlling dragons ... Daenerys almost certainly wouldn't know that many details about how the Valyrians truly controlled their dragons. It's quite possible that the Valyrians knew how to impose or create a bond with a dragon artificially or strengthen a natural bond, through their sorcery and magic horns. It's also possible that sorcery and magic horns were used to help a bonded dragonlord train their dragon, especially young dragons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now